Jai Lal Thakur And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21986 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2017 Thana -MOTIHARI MUFASIL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Jai Lal Thakur, Son of Late Hari Shankar Thakur,

2. Indu Devi, W/o Jai Lal Thakur,

3. Ranjan Thakur, Son of Jai Lal Thakur,

4. Bhola Thakur, Son of Jai Lal Thakur, All are Resident of VillageChandrahiya, P.S.- Mufassil, District- East Champaran ( Motihari). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal, learned Additional P.P. for the State. The petitioners herein have approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 04/2017, registered under Sections 307, 379 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant was putting up on a government land. The accused were demanding rangdari. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence they all came with arms and started assaulting several family members of the prosecution party. It is submitted that the present petitioner had also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21986 of 2017 (4) dt.10-08-2017 2/2 lodged a case against the prosecution party. Both the parties were asserting title and possession over the government land. The injuries sustained by the injured are not serious/grievous. Mr. Dayal, on the other hand, submits that there is also allegation of extortion. All the accuseds had come determined to commit the offence. Referring to impugned order, it has been submitted that all the accused persons of the present case were also made accused earlier, in which one of the accused had gone jail. On his coming out from jail, the present occurrence was committed.

Considering the allegation and the materials available on record, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioners surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, their prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J.) Rakhi U T